Reversing itself, FDA expresses concerns over health risks from BPA

[denem]

Source: Washington Post

The Food and Drug Administration has reversed its position on the safety of Bisphenol A, a chemical found in plastic bottles, soda cans, food containers and thousands of consumer goods, saying it now has concerns about health risks.

Growing scientific evidence has linked the chemical to a host of problems, including cancer, sexual dysfunction and heart disease. Federal officials said they are particularly concerned about BPA's effect on the development of fetuses, infants and young children...

BPA, used to harden plastics, is so prevalent that more than 90 percent of the U.S. population has traces of it in its urine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers have found that BPA leaches from containers into food and beverages, even at cold temperatures...

The FDA had long maintained that BPA is safe, relying largely on two studies funded by the chemical industry. The agency was faulted by its own panel of independent science advisers in 2008, which said its position on BPA was scientifically flawed because it ignored more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that raised health concerns about BPA. Recent data found health effects even at low doses of BPA -- lower than the levels considered safe by the FDA.

The chemical industry, which produces more than 6 billion tons of BPA annually and has been fighting restrictions on its use, said Friday's announcement was good news because the agency did not tell people to stop using products containing the chemical.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/15/AR2010011504070.html?hpid=topnews

---

I hope each Chemical Industry Executive is made to drink 6 billion tons of BPA, every day, in hell.

(BTW, more evidence for Obama=Bush FU)

[Mithreal]

1. Rec'd for science. The Dem admin is going to have to do a lot more

than that to persuade people you refer to in your last statement. The Third Way, New Deal Deal Way is just not convincing. Shaming your fellow Progressives isn't going to work. We already heard words from the greatest salesman on earth. We want significant action on a whole host of issues and if the pressure hurts good because I say make the Dem leadership scream and fear Progressives.

Save kumbaya for election season, we'll need it.

[denem]

2. You want to defend Obama=Bush?

Guud Luck!

[Mithreal]

3. Nope, and I won't. I will defend frustration though.

Glad you edited, because that other word really got me riled.

[denem]

4. I think I'd edited before you replied, but yeah,

there's a lot of anger to go around. FDA decides to cling to Chemical Industry studies? Fuck this Bizzaro world.

[Mithreal]

5. Yeah, I saw it. The only reason I got angry was I think it should only be used against R's.

I love the picture of the little girl praying though, probably know the one I mean.

[SpiralHawk]

7. Hell, with GMOs everyone clings to Monsanto, etc. 'studies'

about how 'undifferent' genetically modified organisms are supposed to be...but, somewhere down the road, we will have real studies about gmo -- and they will say - "Uh oh, we really screwed up. Sorry about that. GMOs are really really bad for you. Tut tut. Too late, suckers."

[im1013]

15. Oh, look... here's one real study now!

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm



:grr:

[The Doctor.]

8. Utter bullshit.

I may not be happy with how every little thing has gone in the one year he's been in office, but to claim that Obama is the equivalent to Bush is the height of ignorance.

Shit, just the SAT scores prove your assertion fallacious.

[sendero]

9. On shit..

.. that doesn't matter, he's nothing like Bush. On everything that does matter, the economy, the wars, the way government operates, he's EXACTLY like Bush.

[Mithreal]

10. If I might speak for denem, I think you are misreading and misunderstanding intent

Just the mention of that equivalency is poison. It distracts entirely from the story which was more important.

I am not stone throwing though. I misunderstand intent all too often myself.

[boppers]

6. Shut down BPA and di-hydrogen monoxide!

Chemicals are killing us!

edit: typo

[Mithreal]

11. You are kidding about BPA, right, Boppers?

BPA industry seeks to polish chemical's image
http://www.physorg.com/news162996203.html

Our Exposure to Controversial Chemical May be Greater than Dose Considered Safe
http://www.physorg.com/news163854340.html

Analysis of new data confirms bisphenol A link to disease in adults
http://www.physorg.com/news182581675.html

Bisphenol A exposure in pregnant mice permanently changes DNA of offspring
http://www.physorg.com/news163851615.html

Plastics component affects intestine: study
http://www.physorg.com/news180040630.html

Workplace BPA exposure increases risk of male sexual dysfunction
http://www.physorg.com/news177138050.html

Consumer advocates find BPA in food packaging
http://www.physorg.com/news176452061.html

BPA linked to aggressive behavior in young girls, research suggests
http://www.physorg.com/news174206428.html

Plastics chemical retards growth, function of adult reproductive cells
http://www.physorg.com/news166270806.html

Study finds reproductive health effects from low doses of bisphenol-A
http://www.physorg.com/news164453865.html

BPA May Cause Heart Disease In Women, Said Scientists Studying Rats
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153478.php

This is just a small sample.

[Quantess]

12. I'll have to check these articles out.

Thank you.

[Gman2]

13. I am dying from the shit, cuz they didnt want to upset the applecart

I am a moldmaker, and process engineer. All chemical mfgs are allowed five years to divulge possible harm, from their new concoctions. And now, they refuse to allow SS dis, as they will be flooded with claims. Fucking idiots.

[truedelphi]

17. Sorry to hear that you are affected, Gman.

We just lost a dear neighbor who had Crohn's disease. This disease increses the liklihood that a person will contract intestinal cancer and/or stomach cancers, especially if you use a lot of pesticides and herbicides.

The golf course that employed him as their groundskeeper never told him. Nor did his doctors ever mention that.

And by the time he found it out, it was too late. Forty seven years old, and one day he was the healthiest forty-something I knew, and a month later he was so ill he couldn't stand up.

[hedgehog]

14. So, the Obama administration is in the process of lining up the

scientific evidence for banning BPA, as opposed to just arbitrarily making stuff up like the Bush people, and you don't see this as change?

[Luminous Animal]

16. 70 years of denial

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline

"1930’s: First evidence of BPA toxicity. Scientists discover that BPA is an artificial estrogen (Dodds 1938). Its use as a pharmaceutical hormone is precluded by the invention of another synthetic chemical, DES, with even more potent estrogenic properties. (DES was later taken off the market when it was linked to reproductive cancers in girls born to mothers taking DES during pregnancy, in retrospect an early warning signal for the similar toxic properties confirmed for BPA many years later).

1940’s and 1950's: New use of BPA in plastic. The chemical industry begins to use BPA to manufacture a hard plastic called polycarbonate, and to make epoxy resins used as linings for metal food cans and a variety of other products. Although BPA leaches out of plastic long after its manufacture, the material is used in consumer products with no requirement that companies prove it is safe. The 70 years that follow BPA's introduction in these industries see the explosion of BPA-based plastics to encompass products as wide-ranging as bicycle helmets, water coolers, and baby bottles.

1976: First law to regulate industrial chemicals, fails to establish safety of BPA. Congress passes the Toxic Substances Control Act, the first law in the U.S. to regulate industrial chemicals. BPA is one of 62,000 chemicals "grandfathered" in, presumed safe by the Environmental Protection Agency with no evaluation of the evidence.

1982: Government assessment of BPA toxicity holds no regulatory weight. The National Toxicology Program determines that the lowest adverse effect level (LOAEL) for BPA in laboratory animals is 1,000 parts per million (ppm), equivalent to 50 milligrams of BPA per kilogram of body weight per day (50 mg/kg/d) (NTP 1982). This study becomes the basis for EPA's 1988 safety standard which has remained in place for decades, sorely out of step with scores of low-dose BPA toxicity studies published in the interim. <1982 NTP study of BPA toxicity (pdf)>."